On 5/29/11 11:08 AM, "Ham Priday" <[email protected]> wrote:
<snip>
> I don't claim an ability to "describe" the ineffable, but simply to explain
> its "dynamics" in a context that logicians like you can accept. It's
> obvious to me that although we can't experience "nothingness" in our world
> of appearances, it nevertheless accounts for the differentiation and
> contrariety of our experience. Like the proverbial "zero" which
> mathematically represents "nothing", it doesn't exist; yet existence is not
> experienceable without it. One could say that nothingness is conspicuous by
> its absence.
<snip>
Hi Ham and All,
Your word games are confusing. You claim to have no ability to "describe
the ineffable", and then you clam it has "dynamics." How could you know
such a thing? Your description of "nothingness", seems more like a
description of evolution as "differentiation" and "contrariety" in our
experience. Word games!
IMHO evolution is a much clearer explanation of differentiation and
contrariety of experience.
Joe
Moq_Discuss mailing list
Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
Archives:
http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
http://moq.org/md/archives.html
